Racial Discrimination: International Convention Declaration

Baroness Whitaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many states have made a declaration under Article 14 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination so as to allow individual petition to the monitoring body set up by the treaty; and whether the United Kingdom will join them.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Thirty states have made declarations under Article 14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination concerning the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and consider communications from individuals or groups.
	The Government have no present plans to give new rights of petition under any UN human rights treaty. This reflects the outcome of a thorough review of our obligations under international human rights treaties in March 1999. We will review the position again when the Human Rights Act 1998 has been implemented and is properly bedded down.
	The Human Rights Act 1998, which gives direct effect in the UK to the obligations set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, will enter into force in England and Wales on 2 October 2000.

Zimbabwe: CMAG Mandate

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in view of conditions in Zimbabwe, they will call for a review of the rules of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group regarding suspension from the Commonwealth.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) has a mandate from Heads of Government to deal with serious or persistent violations of the fundamental political values contained in the 1991 Harare Commonwealth Declaration. The Commonwealth High Level Group, set up under the chairmanship of President Mbeki of South Africa at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Durban in November 1999, will be considering whether, and if so how, CMAG's mandate should be expanded.

Zimbabwe: CMAG Mandate

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group is the custodian of the Harare Principles.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) was established in 1995 in order to deal with serious or persistent violations of the fundamental political values contained in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration of 1991.

Zimbabwe: CMAG Mandate

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether membership of the Commonwealth implies the observation of the fundamental values expressed in the Harare Declaration, and in particular the values of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and good governance.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: All Heads of Government of member countries at the time of the Harare Commonwealth Declaration in 1991 declared their commitment to the fundamental principles expressed in this declaration. In 1997, at the Edinburgh Heads of Government Meeting, it was agreed that prospective new members should comply with the Commonwealth values, principles and priorities as set out in the Harare Declaration.

Zimbabwe: CMAG Mandate

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What would constitute a serious and continuous violation of the Harare Declaration, worthy of demanding investigation by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, in the context of the farm policy in Zimbabwe.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There is no agreed definition of a serious or persistent breach of the principles of the Harare Commonwealth Declaration. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) has hitherto confined its attention to countries where democratically elected civilian governments have been overthrown unconstitutionally. CMAG's task is to assess the nature of any infringement of the Harare Commonwealth Declaration which is brought to its attention. A decision to add a country to the agenda would, however, have to be taken by consensus by all the members of the group.

Intelligence Services Tribunal

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements have been made following the expiry of the terms of appointment of the members of the Intelligence Services Tribunal on 15 December 1999.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Lord Justice Mummery has been appointed as president of the tribunal for a period of five years, following his predecessor's acceptance of an appointment to the post of Intelligence Services Commissioner. Sheriff John McInnes has been re-appointed as vice-President of the tribunal and both he and Sir Richard Gaskell have been re-appointed to the tribunal for a further period of five years.
	Lord Justice Simon Brown, formerly president of the Intelligence Services Tribunal, has accepted an appointment as the Intelligence Services Commissioner for a period of three years from 1 April 2000.

Chechen Refugees in Georgia

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many Chechen refugees are in Georgia; and whether the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is providing funds to meet their needs.

Baroness Amos: The United Nations' High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) calculates that by the beginning of April 2000, 7,000 people had fled from Chechnya into Georgia, of whom approximately two-thirds were Chechens. The UNHCR branch office in Georgia is providing emergency food and medical aid, as well as blankets and sleeping bags.

Asylum Support Service

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What policy the National Asylum Support Service is following in relation to (a) the provision of toys for refugee children; and (b) the giving of change to asylum seekers when the purchase price of food is less than the value of a voucher.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The new support system is intended to meet the essential living needs of destitute asylum seekers on a short-term basis until the determination of their asylum applications. Toys cannot be considered an essential living need and they have been excluded from being treated as such by the Asylum Support Regulations 2000. However, that does not prevent asylum seekers from using their vouchers and cash to purchase toys. Nor does it prevent accommodation providers or voluntary organisations from providing toys if they choose to do so.
	Asylum seekers will be spending their vouchers in the knowledge that no change will be given. There is no reason why an asylum seeker should not be able to obtain the full value of his voucher allocation. The largest denomination voucher will be a £10 cash voucher, exchangeable for pounds sterling at a nominated post office. Each asylum seeker and each dependant will be issued one such £10 cash voucher per week. The other vouchers will be in denominations of £5, £1.50p and a further voucher to cover any odd pence in the designated level of support. Asylum seekers will be able to use a combination of their vouchers and cash to ensure that they do not lose out.

Government Departments: External Consultancy Costs

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 6th April, whether they are satisfied that no record is kept centrally of the value of external consultancy contracts entered into by the Government on a departmental basis.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In collecting information at the centre, the Government seek to strike a proper balance between cost and advantage. The Office of Government Commerce is considering with departments the case for collecting more aggregate information on government procurement of goods and services.

DTI's Role

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the purpose of the Department of Trade and Industry.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The DTI is central to the Government's modernising agenda for the economy. A healthy business sector is vital to our standard of living as a nation, and the department has front-line responsibility for supporting British business and for much of the underlying framework for economic activity. Business must lead in the process of modernisation by responding to the spur of competition and exploiting market opportunities. The DTI's task is to help make the UK a more competitive and profitable base for business. It works to do this at home, in Europe and on the wider international stage.
	Among the key elements of its work, the department is working to increase enterprise, innovation and the exploitation of science, to capitalise on the immense potential of electronic commerce and to help business to wire up to the digital market place. It provides help to small businesses to grow, to invest and to improve their skills. It supports economic growth in the regions working with the regional development agencies and others. It is empowering consumers and increasing protection from rogue traders taking forward the Government's energy policy and helping to ensure that business can find people with the skills it needs. The department also seeks to promote the highest standards of scientific excellence, to make the most of the advances made by science, engineering and technology, improving our quality of life, promoting sustainable growth and underpinning the UK's standard of living now and in the future.
	It works to create open, efficient and competitive markets which reward innovation and enterprise. It aims to provide a regulatory structure for business which promotes fairness and avoids unnecessary burdens on business. It is promoting a framework for employees and employers which promotes partnership and a skilled and flexible labour market.
	The department's aim is to increase competitiveness and scientific excellence in order to generate higher levels of sustainable growth and productivity in a modern economy. The department's objectives, which support this aim, are to promote enterprise, innovation and increased productivity; to make the most of the UK's science, engineering and technology; to create strong and competitive markets; and to develop a fair and effective legal and regulatory framework.
	The department is responsible for over £3 billion of public expenditure each year, around 50 per cent of it on the seven research councils which support science.

DTI's Role

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they wish the Department of Trade and Industry to pursue an interventionalist role in the British economy.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The role of the Department of Trade and Industry is not to intervene before breakfast, lunch and dinner. It is to establish an environment in which business can prosper. It is putting in place a number of programmes to achieve this: a new enterprise fund to help small firms invest in success, the Phoenix Fund to promote enterprise in deprived areas and a fund to invest in business clusters; launch of the Small Business Service to give smaller businesses a strong voice within government, simplify and improve business support and tackle red tape; the Electronics Commuinications Bill, which will facilitate the use of e-mail and other electronic means of communication in commercial transactions; the joint DTI/DfEE/HEFCE Reach Out Fund to provide new incentives for collaboration between business and universities; additional funding to help business use new technology, through TCS, SMART and the Faraday partnership initiative, the Information Society Initiative and the Environmental Best Practice Programme; the Postal Services Bill, which will modernise and reform postal services and create a world-class postal network in the UK; a leading role in pushing forward the single market in Europe and in preparing for the Lisbon Summit on economic and social reform; a reference to the Competition Commission of the supply of banking services to small and medium-sized enterprises, following the Cruickshank review.

Takeover Directive

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the proposed Takeover Directive could subject the findings of the United Kingdom's Takeover Panel to the British courts or the European Court of Justice.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: As set out in my previous answer on 13 January (WA 132-33), in principle it is already possible for decisions of the Takeover Panel to be referred to the UK courts in an application for judicial review and for other matters connected with a bid to come before the UK courts in the usual way. However, at present the scope for judicial review of the panel's decisions is extremely limited, and the Court of Appeal has indicated in particular that it is only in exceptional circumstances that it would intervene so as to affect the outcome of a bid. Similarly, at present it is very unlikely (although not impossible) that any point of EC law could arise in connection with a panel decision which was the subject of UK court proceedings so as to make it necessary for the UK court to refer a question to the European Court of Justice. The concern has been raised that the adoption of the directive could make it more likely that points of both domestic and EC law would arise which required adjudication by the UK courts or by the European Court of Justice.
	Her Majesty's Government have therefore negotiated the inclusion of a clause in the draft directive which is intended to allow the courts in the United Kingdom to continue their practice of not intervening in takeover bids and, by implication, of not referring questions to the European Court of Justice. This clause, Article 4.5, includes a provision stating that the directive does not affect the power which courts may have in a member state to decline to hear legal proceedings and to decide whether or not such proceedings affect the outcome of the bid. The Government have said that they would intend to make maximum use of the flexibility provided by Article 4.5 in order to maintain so far as possible the present legal position established by the courts with respect to takeover bids, and that they will consult widely on draft implementing legislation to ensure that they achieve this result in practice.

E-commerce Accreditation Scheme: Consultation

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consultations they held before deciding on the accreditation scheme for the e-commerce certification programme; and whether the criteria for accreditation were agreed by those consulted as offering adequate protection for consumers and thus to encourage e-commerce in the United Kingdom.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Government invited views on their proposals on industry codes of practice in their consumer White Paper of July 1999. The White Paper included outline core principles for all codes and additional principles for e-commerce codes. TrustUK developed its criteria based on these principles in consultation with business, consumer and regulatory organisations. As a result, a considerable number of changes were made. Some consultees would have preferred more detailed criteria in some areas, while others felt certain criteria too prescriptive. The final draft of the criteria was presented to the TrustUK Working Group and a consensus of agreement formed. Codes of practice should be flexible instruments and TrustUK is developing a transparent procedure for keeping its criteria under review.
	All applications for TrustUK approval will be considered by an approval committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. To ensure no conflicts of interest arise, no one who is a member of an organisation that operates an on-line code will sit on the committee.

"Spam" e-mail

Lord Lucas: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to legislate to control "spam" e-mail under Article 10 of the European Union's Distance Selling Directive by the opt-in or opt-out method.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Article 10.2 of Distance Selling Directive 97/7/EC states that member states shall ensure that means of distance communication, including unsolicited commercial e-mail, which allow individual communications shall be used only where there is no clear objection from the consumer. My department issued a consultation document and draft implementing regulations in November 1999 and officials are currently analysing the responses on this issue from business and consumer groups.

"Spam" e-mail

Lord Lucas: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the statement by Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 14th March (CWH 25-26), why they consider that a small business is more capable of dealing with "spam" e-mail than the average private user of e-mail.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: In my statement of 14 March 1 referred to Directive 97/7 EC on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts which provides that means of distance communication, including unsolicited commercial e-mail, which allow individual communications shall be used only where there is no clear objection from the consumer. The directive does not apply to business transactions.

Poor Behaviour and Truancy in Schools: Cost of Remedial Measures

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the total sum allocated for preventing and remedying the effects of the suspension and exclusion of pupils from schools; how this sum is divided between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in which financial years; and whether the portion available to Northern Ireland is ring-fenced, in view of the current suspension of devolved government.

Baroness Blackstone: In 2000-01 the School Inclusion: Pupil Support Standards Fund Grant will make available over £140 million to schools and local education authorities in England to help combat poor behaviour and truancy. The target is to reduce exclusions and truancy by one-third and provide a full timetable for excluded pupils by 2002.
	In 2000-01 some £6.1 million will be spent in Northern Ireland on a range of measures to promote positive behaviour and improved attendance at schools. The funding provided is not ring-fenced but has been allocated out of the Northern Ireland block.
	Education expenditure in relation to Scotland and Wales is a matter for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly respectively.

Spoliation Advisory Panel

Lord Haskel: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are now able to announce the membership and terms of reference of the Spoliation Advisory Panel.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Following consultation on our proposals on both the membership and the terms of reference, I am now able to do so. In establishing the Spoliation Advisory Panel the Government's aim, by providing an alternative to litigation, is to facilitate a just resolution of claims made for cultural objects that may have been looted in the Nazi era between 1933 and 1945.
	The membership of the panel will be:
	Chair: The Rt Hon Sir David Hirst
	Mr Donell Deeny QC
	Professor Richard Evans
	Sir Terry Heiser
	Professor Peter Jones
	Mr Martin Levy
	Mr Peter Oppenheimer
	Professor Norman Palmer
	Ms Anna Southall
	Dr Liba Taub
	Baroness Warnock
	The constitution and terms of reference proposed for the panel are as set out. These have been revised as a result of consultation and the Government believe they offer a fair way forward. The panel will be able to advise not only claimants and those who hold the items in question in their collections, but also the Government themselves. The Government intend that the panel should begin work as soon as possible. Spoliation Advisory Panel Constitution and Terms of Reference Members of the Panel
	1. The members of the Spoliation Advisory Panel ("the Panel") will be appointed by the Secretary of State on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit. The Secretary of State shall appoint one member as Chairman of the Panel. Resources for the Panel
	2. The Secretary of State will make available such resources as he considers necessary to enable the Panel to carry out its functions, including administrative support provided by a Secretariat ("the Secretariat") Functions of the Panel
	3. The task of the Panel is to consider claims from anyone (or from anyone or more of their heirs) who lost possession of a cultural object ("the object") during the Nazi era (1933-1945) where such object is now in the possession of a UK national collection or in the possession of another UK museum or gallery established for the public benefit ("the institution"). The Panel shall advise the claimant and the institution on what would be appropriate action to take in response to such a claim. The Panel shall also be available to advise about any claim for an item in a private collection at the joint request of the claimant and the owner.
	4. In any case where the Panel considers it appropriate, it may also advise the Secretary of State
	(a) on what action should be taken in relation to general issues raised by the claim, and/or
	(b) where it considers that the circumstances of the particular claim warrant it, on what action should be taken in relation to that claim.
	5. (a) In exercising its functions, while the Panel will consider legal issues relating to title to the object (see paragraph 7(d) and (f)), it will not be the function of the Panel to determine legal rights, for example as to title;
	(b) The Panel's proceedings are an alternative to litigation, not a process of litigation. The Panel will therefore take into account non-legal obligations, such as the moral strength of the claimant's case (paragraph 7(e)) and whether any moral obligation rests on the institution (paragraph 7(g));
	(c) Any recommendation made by the Panel is not intended to be legally binding on the claimant, the institution or the Secretary of State;
	(d) If the claimant accepts the recommendation of the Panel and that recommendation is implemented, the claimant is expected to accept the implementation in full and final settlement of his claim. Performance of the Panel's functions
	6. In performing the functions set out in paragraphs 3 and 4, the Panel's paramount purpose shall be to achieve a solution which is fair and just both to the claimant and to the institution.
	7. For this purpose the Panel shall:--
	(a) make such factual and legal inquiries (including the seeking of advice about legal matters, about cultural objects and about valuation of such objects) as the Panel considers appropriate to assess each claim as comprehensively as possible;
	(b) assess all information and material submitted by or on behalf of the claimant and the institution or any other person, or otherwise provided or known to the Panel;
	(c) examine and determine the circumstances in which the claimant was deprived of the object, whether by theft, forced sale, sale at an undervalue, or otherwise;
	(d) evaluation, on the balance of probability, the validity of the claimant's original title to the object, recognising the difficulties of proving such title after the destruction of the Second World War and the Holocaust and the duration of the period which has elapsed since the claimant lost possession of the object;
	(e) give due weight to the moral strength of the claimant's case;
	(f) evaluate, on the balance of probability, the validity of the institution's title to the object;
	(g) consider whether any moral obligation rests on the institution taking into account in particular the circumstances of its acquisition of the object, and its knowledge at that juncture of the object's provenance;
	(h) take account of any relevant statutory provisions, including stipulations as to the institution's objectives, and any restrictions on its power of disposal;
	(i) take account of the terms of any trust instrument regulating the powers and duties of the trustees of the institution, and give appropriate weight to their fiduciary duties;
	(j) where appropriate assess the current market value of the object;
	(k) formulate and submit to the claimant and to the institution its advice in a written report, giving reasons, and supply a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, and
	(l) formulate and submit to the Secretary of State any advice pursuant to paragraph 4 in a written report, giving reasons, and supply a copy of the report to the claimant and the institution. Scope of Advice
	8. If the Panel upholds the claim in principle, it may recommend either:
	(a) the return of the object to the claimant, or
	(b) the payment of compensation to the claimant, the amount being in the discretion of the Panel having regard to all relevant circumstances including the current market value, but not tied to that current market value, or
	(c) an ex gratia payment to the claimant, or
	(d) the display alongside the object of an account of its history and provenance during and since the Nazi era, with special reference to the claimant's interest therein; and
	(e) that negotiations should be conducted with the successful claimant in order to implement such a recommendation as expeditiously as possible.
	9. When advising the Secretary of State under paragraph 4(a) and/or (b), the Panel shall be free to recommend any action which it considers appropriate, and in particular may, under paragraph 4(a), direct attention of the Secretary of State to the need for legislation to alter the powers and duties of any institution.

Statutory Instruments

Lord Alexander of Weedon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What percentage of the time on the Floor of the House of Lords was spent in discussing statutory instruments in:
	(a) 1979-80;
	(b) 1989-90; and
	(c) the latest Session for which statistics are conveniently available; and
	What percentage of the time on the Floor of the House of Commons was spent in discussing statutory instruments in:
	(a) 1979-80;
	(b) 1989-90; and
	(c) the latest Session for which statistics are conveniently available.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Government do not keep the information requested, but the House of Lords Information Office has provided the following statistics.
	
		Statutory Instruments discussed on the Floor of the House of Lords as a percentage of the total time of the House
		
			  1979-80 1989-90 1998-99 
			 Affirmative Instruments 4.7 2.8 2.9 
			 Other SIs 0.1 0.4 0.3 
		
	
	Source:
	House of Lords Journal and Information Office sessional statistics.
	
		Statutory Instruments discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons as a percentage of the total time of the House
		
			  1979-80 1989-90 1998-99 
			 Affirmative Instruments 6.6 5.8 2.6 
			 Negative Instruments 2.6 1.3 0.1 
		
	
	Source:
	House of Commons Journal Office sessional statistics.
	It may be helpful to note that in 1992 the Select Committee on Sittings of the House considered "that adequate debate could be achieved and time on the Floor freed through the referral of more instruments to standing committee". It recommended that affirmative instruments be automatically referred to Standing Committee. (HC (1991-92) 20-I, para 73). This recommendation was implemented.

Hereditary and Life Peers

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Following the recent announcement of the creation of new life peers, whether they will tabulate by party or group (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench) the percentage of former hereditaries of the party or group now sitting as life peers as against the former total of hereditary peers of that party or group; and whether they will indicate whether the manifesto commitment to the abolition of hereditary rights to sit and vote in the House of Lords has now been abandoned in relation to the Labour peerage.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Government remain committed to ending the right of all hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
	The Government have consistently made clear that hereditary peers excluded from the House under the provisions of the House of Lords Act 1999 would be eligible to receive life peerages and that we fully expected that some of those excluded peers would be nominated for life peerages.
	Party leaders can nominate whosoever they wish to receive a life peerage. The Prime Minister has made a commitment not to refuse the nominations of other party leaders that the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee has passed.
	
		
			  Former hereditary peers now sitting as life peers(1) As a percentage of present number of peers(2) As a percentage of the hereditary peers before the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999(3) 
			 Conservative 9(1) 3.8 2.9 
			 Labour 7 3.5 36.8 
			 Lib Dem 2 3.2 8.7 
			 Cross-Bench 1 0.6 0.4 
		
	
	(1) Including those announced on 31 March 2000 and assuming those peers that have yet to take their seats do so according to expected party groupings.
	(2) As at the end of the last parliamentary Session.
	(3) Includes the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres and Viscount Younger of Leckie. Both had been awarded life peerages before inheriting their hereditary titles. Following the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999 they now sit as life peers.

County Down to Belfast Rapid Transit System Proposal

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether European Union funding was sought for an expressway-style rapid transit system from the northern part of County Down to Belfast; how much funding was sought and when; and what was the response.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: European funding of £152,605.25 has been given to the EWAY study, which cost £203,475.
	No European funding has been sought for the EWAY project.

County Down to Belfast Rapid Transit System Proposal

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any approaches have been made from private sources to part fund an expressway-style rapid transit system from the northern part of County Down to Belfast; and what was the response.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand that during work on the EWAY study expressions of interest were made, in principle, to the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company to contribute towards the costs of the project.

Smoking in Public Places

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to reduce the number of deaths in Northern Ireland related to smoking by encouraging organisations to ban smoking by employees and the public in areas over which they have control.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government do not believe that a prescriptive approach to smoking in public places and in the workplace represents the most effective way of addressing the problem. A comprehensive government strategy to tackle smoking across the United Kingdom is set out in the White Paper Smoking Kills, which was published in December 1998. With regard to smoking in the workplace, a new code of practice which will define the kind of smoking policies employers need to operate in order to comply with existing health and safety legislation is currently under consideration.
	The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is discussing with the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade the provision of smoke-free facilities in licensed premises. A charter on smoking in public places is expected to be launched before the summer.